How does the voice of Maus, written in the voice of a second generation differ from that of a survivor? Do you find one to be more authentic than the other? Do you find one to be more emotional than the other? Explain.
Survivor and second generation could be equally authentic because the survivor may not remember every last detail, so the second generation wouldn't know either. Although the survivor's would be more emotional because they went through it themselves. Second generation can only hear about it and wonder.
The survivor will know more than the second generation because the survivor was the one to live it out day in and day out. The survivor can tell his son/daughter everything but the survivor is the only one with all of the details. The story of the survivor will also be more emotional because like I said, he wen't through it all and a person that has heard the story will not have the same impact as the person who has gone through it in real life.
I agree with Diego in saying that even a second generation may not be able to uncover some facts that were not remembered by the survivor. But through an emotional standpoint, the only true way to hear about the reality, and severity, of the events that took place. In this sense, the survivor is really the only one who could give you a real interpretation of the facts, through the eyes of an eyewitness.
Do you think the voice of the survivor is more emotional? What tells a better story...the emotional account of a survivor or the factual account of the second generation?
I think that the survivor's acount would be more emotional. The second generation would not be able to tell the story and make it as personal as a survivor could. The survivor could express how they feel through their writting, while the second generatoin could only recount the events.
My opinion and perspective is what Ivan and Diego basically said. I believe that a voice of a survivor is by far better than a voice of a second generation. Why? Well, the survivor actually lived out and witnessed from first hand what actually happened. I find it extremely hard to believe that someone may forget what happened if it involved something big as the Holocaust, especially if they worked as a 'slave' to the Nazis. I believe that both, from a second generation and survivor's perspective, that both stories can tend to be more emotional. It may be emotional for a survivor because while she may be explaining her story, she or he may be reminiscing about all the tragedies and hardships he or she may go through. From a second generation stand point, it may not be as emotional from a survivor's standpoint, but it can still bring out emotions especially if the person is connected in any way to the actual source (the survivor in this case).
The way this book differs from a survivors stand point of the Holocaust is that if someone wrote about THEIR OWN LIFE IN THE HOLOCAUST, It would tell a unique, more intimate story than someone who has heard other stories of the holocaust because the survivors recollection of what happened won't be about a mix of a few stories, but of what they encountered during that time.
I agree with Diego not many holocaust survivors can remember every detail of what occurred behind the barbed wire. In an emotional sense, the survivor was far more emotional due to the fact that he or she actually went through the horrors of the holocaust. The second generation cannot feel the feelings of the survivor. All they can do is think about those feelings.
When written from a second generation, the story is already interpreted for the reader so it is easier to understand. When it is written by the survivor it is much more emotional and personal because they are manually spilling out as many details of what happened as they can. I find the 2nd generation writers to be more authentic because they can trace things through history and will be able to find more details of specific places and events.
I believe that if it was written by that of the survivor, it would be more in depth and more emotional. I think that if the second generation wrote it, it would lack some important facts or events ans would also be more historically based. I think the survivor's version would be more authentic, or original, because he actually was involved in the Holocaust and can relive his past experiences when he writes about his life. Overall, I believe that the survivor's story would be more emotional because it is about his or her life and can go more in depth about what he or she was feeling that time of when it had occurred.
A story written by the survivor would be more in depth than one that was written by a second generation. Because the second generation author was not physically there, they will leave some of the details out. And even if they had the actual survivor tell them what happened, they would have trouble fully grasping the emotional trauma that the survivor experienced. Thought a second generation author can still write a very good book, a book written by the survivor almost seems like you are there with them.
The authenticity of the survivor is better portrayed than by the second generation because there is more feeling and emotion to his story when he tells it. The second generation could not understand the heart ache and loss of those who went through the daily struggle of the holocaust. He could not put in the full detail of the emotional struggles that his father and family went through. Even though how the author portrayed all the characters in the book he did give some good insight to how these people felt and struggled. But I think if the survivor was to of written the book it wouldn't of had the right tone that caught peoples attention that it does.
I found that when it is written from a second point of view, it tends to be more based on the Holocaust, and not on one persons story of the Holocaust. Although it was based off of his fathers story, i feel a first person story would be better. I find first person more authentic because it has not been passed on and the story remains in the eyes of the person in the actual event. I also find first person more emotional because it is the actual persons emotions being put on the page and not just a story about someone's emotions.
I believe that being written from a second generation it probably wasn't as graphic or taken as serious as from a survivor of the Holocaust. Don't get me wrong I'm sure it is still supposed to be taken serious but in my opinion if a survivor wrote this book i highly doubt they would had used animals for the different nations because some might say it is mocking the Holocaust. As i was saying i don't think the second generation author emphasized some events in the book. I think the survivors would be more authentic because i think he would be able to explain events that no one else can picture or imagine. The survivors would be more emotional because he is using his eyes and ears to write the book and that makes some situations more powerful to a reader.
I definitely think that if it is from the survivor it is more authentic. One reason is the detailing from an actual survivor is way more thrilling to hear than someone who wasn't actually there. Because the people can exaggerate or stretch the truth. For a survivor it is like a reflex to tell what happened and top give the gist of what ACTUALLY happened.
I agree with Garrett's opinion of the story spoken from the survivor's standpoint would be more effective. The authenticity from the survivor creates a more vivid picture of what he actually experienced. There also could have been many details that the survivor might have been implied or meant to say that the second generation may not have understood. It would be very difficult for the second generation to depict exactly what the first generation is wanting to say and express because the second generation has not experienced what the first has and therefore would not be able to give a genuine account of the story.
The voice would be different because it would be more of an emotional journey when writing the book for someone who went through the events rather than having someone from the second generation. The people who went through it would have to look back at how harsh of a time they had. The person from the second generation could only imagine what happened and how bad it actually was. The survivor would have more of an authentic story than the second generation. I think the emotional account of a survivor tells a story better. A lot of people already know the facts and most people want to hear how a survivor felt and what he went through during the time.
I find that the voice of a survivor is much more effective in storytelling. I believe this because you could replace a survivor with the greatest second generation author in the world and his story would never be as detailed, horrific, and jaw dropping as a survivor's would be. Being in the action is more real than anyon can imagine and with a survivor the Holocaust leaves memories implanted in their brain that they will never be able to forget.
In my opinion the survivor would know way more than the second generation. The survivor is a person who knows what it is like to be in harsh conditions that he will never forget. While the second generation has just heard the stories and read the books. I found the survivor to be more authentic because he has lived it while the second generation has just heard it. The survivor will be way more emotional because he may remember how he felt at the time and the problems he was going through while sharing his experience.
I disagree because it is not necessarily more effective but rather more valid. Because the survivor has been through the events you believe all that has happened. But from the second generation the story will have more detail as the writer will be able to bring out more from the survivor.
I believe that the story would be more historically correct from a survivor. I believe this because it is the exact things that happened in the Holocaust and the facts are experience rather then hearing passed down stories.
@Nate and Kevin I agree with Nate on this one, because it is both true and effective but it is a lot more truthful then effective because you are hearing facts straight from someone that lived it.
@Nate I disagree with Nate. If the survivor experienced all these events first hand, then their is most likely going to be a lot more detail. It's like when you are taking notes you do not copy down every single detail, you use all the information to make something not every detail would be published.
How is the the second generation source going to be able to bring out more detail and more from the survivor? The survivor went through and experienced at first hand the strategy. Image that you are a Holocaust survivor and you are telling a story when you were in a concentration camp to your son. Your son will not know anything at all of what you experienced unless you tell him. You will know every detail about it and will be able to bring out emotion to your story because you LIVED it.Your son is using you as his source, meaning all his information he is collecting is from you. This is why a I believe a survivor perspective is better.
I believe that the survivor would have more details to the events that happened, and that it would be more emotional. I find that a survivor's story would be more authentic that a second generation because they actually experienced it and a second generation only heard about the events.
@ chris Barr i agree with you buddy i too think that the story would have more of a powerful effect on us a reader if it was written in a first person view. The story was still passionate but i don't think anyone can compare to a story from someone who lived the experience.
I believe that a story coming from the survivor of the Holocaust would be much greater on an emotional level than a story coming from the second generation. Although this book is coming straight from the survivor it might have been interpreted slightly different by Art. For example if it wasn't for Art who is the second generation this book would not exist in its format or any other way and it would have never received the credit for such a highly acclaimed novel.
I believe that actually having been in the holocaust would be much different than a second generation because the Holocaust survivor actually went through everything and could detail every last part of what they went through. A sencond generation author could only write about as much as he has learned from other people.
I feel as though the survivor would be able to write with more emotion, as sometimes emotion can be hard to express to someone else but easier for them to write down. The version a survivor would write would most likely be miore historically accuraste, and would provide an insight as to what heppened inside the camps themselves.
I would say that the survivor's story is more emotional because they were there to experience it. The 2nd generation also makes a great story but we don't get what actually happened because they try to make the story factual.
I find the second generation one to show less emotion because they themselves can not entirely understand what the survivors had gone through. The story written by a survivor would be in more detail and show more of the survivor's feelings. It would also be more authentic then how a second generation person would write it.
Ok, now going over it I understand that valid is a better word to be used rather than effective, because a second generation writer could be better at writing as to a survivor is more of an eye witness
A second-generation-written book doesn't exactly capture the same kind of emotion that novel written by a survivor could. The second generation writer may understand and write the story well but without actually being there he/she cannot give exactly of how a character in the book was feeling throughout their conflict. A survivor and writer of a novel can give a better and clearer explanation of exactly what they were feeling at that moment in time.
Maus seems like it would of been emotional if Vladak wrote it. It would of been right out of the surviver but then theres a plus. with a suriver it could be a little more streched from the truth because the surviver could build up rage a add false items into their story.
I feel that the person who went through the trauma and saw what happened in person can give the details of the story. This makes the story a hundred percent better because its authentic and gives tou every small detail of the story.
I think Maus would have been more emotionally focused if it was written directly from the mind of the one who went through it all, Vladek. You just can't express and feel the same emotions through someone telling you the story who heard it from the one that it happened to.
I feel that since it was written by the second generation instead of the first you get a more modern interpretation which makes it a lot more fun to read. LIke personally I thought IMH and SIA were written for adults when Maus was written for teenagers like us because of the pictures and such. LIke if Vladek would had written this instead of art, it would have been in orthodox form. Chapters, parts, nice and long you get the point. This really made me want to read because i was so fascinated by the pictures, books like this is why I keep reading :)
To add to what you were saying Connor, I think that if Vladek would have written a book it would have been short and to the point. Vladek likes to share his memories but remember he is a man, therefore he wouldn't add as much detail as a woman would.
The only thing I don't understand is why you used the argument that Vladek was a man, even though Art too, was a man and was the one who wrote and shared what had been found out by Art.
I believe that since the book was written from the perspective of someone from the second generation it does not have the authenticity of the perspective from someone who actually lived through the events. When you have lived through something so life changing as war you have a whole new respect and understanding for it. although i believe the information provided by the second generation was still very factual, i believe it could have included more emotion coming from Vladek because he expierenced it first hand.
I personaly think that a survivor would feel more of the pain. The survivor would feel more than the second generation because, the second generation didnt have to go through, what the actual survivor went to.
I do agree with you that the second generation is a historical based rather than emotion because they did not experience the Holocaust or WWII as they did as the survivors. The only think i would add is that the second generation would slightly get a sense that they were experiencing the Holocaust was if they felt the emotion of the survivor. They can relate to their emotions by applying it to their life experiences.
@Nate I agree that the sometimes it can be more valid if its from the survivor and i disagree because i have to agree with @nick that the person who experienced everything would put things into more detail and add more of their emotions into the story to make it more efficient.
I feel that since the book was written in the second generation the author does not feel the exact way as his father. Vladek is the only person who will know the tragedy of the holocaust. His son cannot understand because he has not been through it. He can only get an idea of his fathers stories. If it was the father who wrote the book he would of given a very descriptive story. But vladek tells his son and his son writes about it.
No doubt that this book would be more authentic if it was written by the survivor. The survivor lived through the Holocaust and he got the experince. The second generation wouldn't have a clue to write about the Holocaust because they never experienced it. All they have are beliefs. If it was written by the survivor emotionally this book would be more sound.
@ Ike I completely agree with you that a second generation could write the story well, but it wouldn't have the same as actually being there and going through what they went through.
Survivor and second generation could be equally authentic because the survivor may not remember every last detail, so the second generation wouldn't know either. Although the survivor's would be more emotional because they went through it themselves. Second generation can only hear about it and wonder.
ReplyDeleteThe survivor will know more than the second generation because the survivor was the one to live it out day in and day out. The survivor can tell his son/daughter everything but the survivor is the only one with all of the details. The story of the survivor will also be more emotional because like I said, he wen't through it all and a person that has heard the story will not have the same impact as the person who has gone through it in real life.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Diego in saying that even a second generation may not be able to uncover some facts that were not remembered by the survivor. But through an emotional standpoint, the only true way to hear about the reality, and severity, of the events that took place. In this sense, the survivor is really the only one who could give you a real interpretation of the facts, through the eyes of an eyewitness.
ReplyDeleteDo you think the voice of the survivor is more emotional? What tells a better story...the emotional account of a survivor or the factual account of the second generation?
ReplyDeleteI think that the survivor's acount would be more emotional. The second generation would not be able to tell the story and make it as personal as a survivor could. The survivor could express how they feel through their writting, while the second generatoin could only recount the events.
ReplyDeleteMy opinion and perspective is what Ivan and Diego basically said. I believe that a voice of a survivor is by far better than a voice of a second generation. Why? Well, the survivor actually lived out and witnessed from first hand what actually happened. I find it extremely hard to believe that someone may forget what happened if it involved something big as the Holocaust, especially if they worked as a 'slave' to the Nazis. I believe that both, from a second generation and survivor's perspective, that both stories can tend to be more emotional. It may be emotional for a survivor because while she may be explaining her story, she or he may be reminiscing about all the tragedies and hardships he or she may go through. From a second generation stand point, it may not be as emotional from a survivor's standpoint, but it can still bring out emotions especially if the person is connected in any way to the actual source (the survivor in this case).
ReplyDeleteThe way this book differs from a survivors stand point of the Holocaust is that if someone wrote about THEIR OWN LIFE IN THE HOLOCAUST, It would tell a unique, more intimate story than someone who has heard other stories of the holocaust because the survivors recollection of what happened won't be about a mix of a few stories, but of what they encountered during that time.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Diego not many holocaust survivors can remember every detail of what occurred behind the barbed wire. In an emotional sense, the survivor was far more emotional due to the fact that he or she actually went through the horrors of the holocaust. The second generation cannot feel the feelings of the survivor. All they can do is think about those feelings.
ReplyDeleteWhen written from a second generation, the story is already interpreted for the reader so it is easier to understand. When it is written by the survivor it is much more emotional and personal because they are manually spilling out as many details of what happened as they can. I find the 2nd generation writers to be more authentic because they can trace things through history and will be able to find more details of specific places and events.
ReplyDeleteI believe that if it was written by that of the survivor, it would be more in depth and more emotional. I think that if the second generation wrote it, it would lack some important facts or events ans would also be more historically based. I think the survivor's version would be more authentic, or original, because he actually was involved in the Holocaust and can relive his past experiences when he writes about his life. Overall, I believe that the survivor's story would be more emotional because it is about his or her life and can go more in depth about what he or she was feeling that time of when it had occurred.
ReplyDelete-Nathaniel Pascual
A story written by the survivor would be more in depth than one that was written by a second generation. Because the second generation author was not physically there, they will leave some of the details out. And even if they had the actual survivor tell them what happened, they would have trouble fully grasping the emotional trauma that the survivor experienced. Thought a second generation author can still write a very good book, a book written by the survivor almost seems like you are there with them.
ReplyDeleteThe authenticity of the survivor is better portrayed than by the second generation because there is more feeling and emotion to his story when he tells it. The second generation could not understand the heart ache and loss of those who went through the daily struggle of the holocaust. He could not put in the full detail of the emotional struggles that his father and family went through. Even though how the author portrayed all the characters in the book he did give some good insight to how these people felt and struggled. But I think if the survivor was to of written the book it wouldn't of had the right tone that caught peoples attention that it does.
ReplyDeleteI found that when it is written from a second point of view, it tends to be more based on the Holocaust, and not on one persons story of the Holocaust. Although it was based off of his fathers story, i feel a first person story would be better. I find first person more authentic because it has not been passed on and the story remains in the eyes of the person in the actual event. I also find first person more emotional because it is the actual persons emotions being put on the page and not just a story about someone's emotions.
ReplyDeleteI believe that being written from a second generation it probably wasn't as graphic or taken as serious as from a survivor of the Holocaust. Don't get me wrong I'm sure it is still supposed to be taken serious but in my opinion if a survivor wrote this book i highly doubt they would had used animals for the different nations because some might say it is mocking the Holocaust. As i was saying i don't think the second generation author emphasized some events in the book. I think the survivors would be more authentic because i think he would be able to explain events that no one else can picture or imagine. The survivors would be more emotional because he is using his eyes and ears to write the book and that makes some situations more powerful to a reader.
ReplyDeleteI definitely think that if it is from the survivor it is more authentic. One reason is the detailing from an actual survivor is way more thrilling to hear than someone who wasn't actually there. Because the people can exaggerate or stretch the truth. For a survivor it is like a reflex to tell what happened and top give the gist of what ACTUALLY happened.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Garrett's opinion of the story spoken from the survivor's standpoint would be more effective. The authenticity from the survivor creates a more vivid picture of what he actually experienced. There also could have been many details that the survivor might have been implied or meant to say that the second generation may not have understood. It would be very difficult for the second generation to depict exactly what the first generation is wanting to say and express because the second generation has not experienced what the first has and therefore would not be able to give a genuine account of the story.
ReplyDeleteThe voice would be different because it would be more of an emotional journey when writing the book for someone who went through the events rather than having someone from the second generation. The people who went through it would have to look back at how harsh of a time they had. The person from the second generation could only imagine what happened and how bad it actually was. The survivor would have more of an authentic story than the second generation. I think the emotional account of a survivor tells a story better. A lot of people already know the facts and most people want to hear how a survivor felt and what he went through during the time.
ReplyDeleteI find that the voice of a survivor is much more effective in storytelling. I believe this because you could replace a survivor with the greatest second generation author in the world and his story would never be as detailed, horrific, and jaw dropping as a survivor's would be. Being in the action is more real than anyon can imagine and with a survivor the Holocaust leaves memories implanted in their brain that they will never be able to forget.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion the survivor would know way more than the second generation. The survivor is a person who knows what it is like to be in harsh conditions that he will never forget. While the second generation has just heard the stories and read the books. I found the survivor to be more authentic because he has lived it while the second generation has just heard it. The survivor will be way more emotional because he may remember how he felt at the time and the problems he was going through while sharing his experience.
ReplyDelete@Kevin
ReplyDeleteI disagree because it is not necessarily more effective but rather more valid. Because the survivor has been through the events you believe all that has happened. But from the second generation the story will have more detail as the writer will be able to bring out more from the survivor.
I believe that the story would be more historically correct from a survivor. I believe this because it is the exact things that happened in the Holocaust and the facts are experience rather then hearing passed down stories.
ReplyDelete@Nate and Kevin
ReplyDeleteI agree with Nate on this one, because it is both true and effective but it is a lot more truthful then effective because you are hearing facts straight from someone that lived it.
@Nate
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Nate. If the survivor experienced all these events first hand, then their is most likely going to be a lot more detail. It's like when you are taking notes you do not copy down every single detail, you use all the information to make something not every detail would be published.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHow is the the second generation source going to be able to bring out more detail and more from the survivor? The survivor went through and experienced at first hand the strategy. Image that you are a Holocaust survivor and you are telling a story when you were in a concentration camp to your son. Your son will not know anything at all of what you experienced unless you tell him. You will know every detail about it and will be able to bring out emotion to your story because you LIVED it.Your son is using you as his source, meaning all his information he is collecting is from you. This is why a I believe a survivor perspective is better.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the survivor would have more details to the events that happened, and that it would be more emotional. I find that a survivor's story would be more authentic that a second generation because they actually experienced it and a second generation only heard about the events.
ReplyDelete@ chris Barr
ReplyDeletei agree with you buddy i too think that the story would have more of a powerful effect on us a reader if it was written in a first person view.
The story was still passionate but i don't think anyone can compare to a story from someone who lived the experience.
I totally agree with Nate Watson on this one.
ReplyDeleteI believe that a story coming from the survivor of the Holocaust would be much greater on an emotional level than a story coming from the second generation. Although this book is coming straight from the survivor it might have been interpreted slightly different by Art. For example if it wasn't for Art who is the second generation this book would not exist in its format or any other way and it would have never received the credit for such a highly acclaimed novel.
ReplyDeleteI believe that actually having been in the holocaust would be much different than a second generation because the Holocaust survivor actually went through everything and could detail every last part of what they went through. A sencond generation author could only write about as much as he has learned from other people.
ReplyDeleteI feel as though the survivor would be able to write with more emotion, as sometimes emotion can be hard to express to someone else but easier for them to write down. The version a survivor would write would most likely be miore historically accuraste, and would provide an insight as to what heppened inside the camps themselves.
ReplyDeleteI would say that the survivor's story is more emotional because they were there to experience it. The 2nd generation also makes a great story but we don't get what actually happened because they try to make the story factual.
ReplyDeleteI find the second generation one to show less emotion because they themselves can not entirely understand what the survivors had gone through. The story written by a survivor would be in more detail and show more of the survivor's feelings. It would also be more authentic then how a second generation person would write it.
ReplyDelete@Nate
ReplyDeleteOk, now going over it I understand that valid is a better word to be used rather than effective, because a second generation writer could be better at writing as to a survivor is more of an eye witness
A second-generation-written book doesn't exactly capture the same kind of emotion that novel written by a survivor could. The second generation writer may understand and write the story well but without actually being there he/she cannot give exactly of how a character in the book was feeling throughout their conflict. A survivor and writer of a novel can give a better and clearer explanation of exactly what they were feeling at that moment in time.
ReplyDeleteMaus seems like it would of been emotional if Vladak wrote it. It would of been right out of the surviver but then theres a plus. with a suriver it could be a little more streched from the truth because the surviver could build up rage a add false items into their story.
ReplyDeleteI feel that the person who went through the trauma and saw what happened in person can give the details of the story. This makes the story a hundred percent better because its authentic and gives tou every small detail of the story.
ReplyDeleteI think Maus would have been more emotionally focused if it was written directly from the mind of the one who went through it all, Vladek. You just can't express and feel the same emotions through someone telling you the story who heard it from the one that it happened to.
ReplyDeleteI feel that since it was written by the second generation instead of the first you get a more modern interpretation which makes it a lot more fun to read. LIke personally I thought IMH and SIA were written for adults when Maus was written for teenagers like us because of the pictures and such. LIke if Vladek would had written this instead of art, it would have been in orthodox form. Chapters, parts, nice and long you get the point. This really made me want to read because i was so fascinated by the pictures, books like this is why I keep reading :)
ReplyDelete@ Nate Senate
ReplyDeleteWow. I guess I didn't really think of it that way, but I guess the second gen. would be able to do research as well. Good thinking.
@ Connor Speed
ReplyDeleteTo add to what you were saying Connor, I think that if Vladek would have written a book it would have been short and to the point. Vladek likes to share his memories but remember he is a man, therefore he wouldn't add as much detail as a woman would.
@Rodrigo
ReplyDeleteThe only thing I don't understand is why you used the argument that Vladek was a man, even though Art too, was a man and was the one who wrote and shared what had been found out by Art.
I believe that since the book was written from the perspective of someone from the second generation it does not have the authenticity of the perspective from someone who actually lived through the events. When you have lived through something so life changing as war you have a whole new respect and understanding for it. although i believe the information provided by the second generation was still very factual, i believe it could have included more emotion coming from Vladek because he expierenced it first hand.
ReplyDeleteI personaly think that a survivor would feel more of the pain. The survivor would feel more than the second generation because, the second generation didnt have to go through, what the actual survivor went to.
ReplyDelete@Elliot
ReplyDeleteI do agree with you that the second generation is a historical based rather than emotion because they did not experience the Holocaust or WWII as they did as the survivors. The only think i would add is that the second generation would slightly get a sense that they were experiencing the Holocaust was if they felt the emotion of the survivor. They can relate to their emotions by applying it to their life experiences.
@Jack
ReplyDeleteI agree with you completely. Nothing hurts more than feeling it first hand. Wow, this book was a thrill ride.
@Nate I agree that the sometimes it can be more valid if its from the survivor and i disagree because i have to agree with @nick that the person who experienced everything would put things into more detail and add more of their emotions into the story to make it more efficient.
ReplyDeleteI feel that since the book was written in the second generation the author does not feel the exact way as his father. Vladek is the only person who will know the tragedy of the holocaust. His son cannot understand because he has not been through it. He can only get an idea of his fathers stories. If it was the father who wrote the book he would of given a very descriptive story. But vladek tells his son and his son writes about it.
ReplyDeleteNo doubt that this book would be more authentic if it was written by the survivor. The survivor lived through the Holocaust and he got the experince. The second generation wouldn't have a clue to write about the Holocaust because they never experienced it. All they have are beliefs. If it was written by the survivor emotionally this book would be more sound.
ReplyDelete@ Ike
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you that a second generation could write the story well, but it wouldn't have the same as actually being there and going through what they went through.